The "Japanization" of America may be here, as the U.S. begins a long period of weak growth

The U.S. may face a prolonged period of stagnation. That's the warning from a Reuters op-ed written earlier this week by PIMCO CEO and co-CIO Mohamed El-Erian. He worries that the U.S. could be on a worse path than Japan was when it began its "lost decade." But he ends with a note of optimism, saying that policymakers have the power to avoid Japan's fate. Both their willingness and ability to do so should worry us, however.

Why We Face a Lost Decade

What has gone so wrong that the U.S. could be in for a decade or more of sluggish growth and relatively high unemployment? The problem all began with too much borrowing -- on all levels. Consumers, states, and the federal government borrowed too much money. The problem for homeowners is particularly acute, since many now have assets worth less than what they owe due to the housing bubble. Rapidly growing student loan debt makes matters worse.

What you end up with is a troubling cycle. Unemployment is high, so consumer sentiment is low. And as a result, Americans aren't spending enough money to cause firms to hire more aggressively -- so unemployment stays high. And the debt burden Americans are under cuts spending by even more. Many are trying to whittle away at their mortgages, credit card balances, home equity loans, and student loans. Others are trying to rebuild their nest eggs. Weak sentiment combined with deleveraging is a recipe for very slow spending growth.

Housing having been the source of the bubble makes economic growth even harder. It often helps lead a nation out of recession, but this time around it is contributing zero growth.

This begins to point to one of the nation's structural problems. For more than a decade, the U.S. developed a thriving and robust housing market as the center piece of its economy. But it was built on the sand. The tide came in and washed it away. Now it has millions of unemployed Americans who supported that industry in jobs like construction or financial services. The trillions of investment dollars that flowed into real estate industry over this period could have gone to technology or other sectors to provide sustainable growth. Instead, that money was squandered.

Manufacturing is another major source of job losses. Those jobs also aren't coming back. The U.S. can add some new jobs in this sector, but most of those lost are simply more economically viable elsewhere. Most of those now-unemployed workers need to find a new field, which likely requires training. And that takes time and money.

Of course, it doesn't help that the global economy is a disaster. The European Union continues to struggle to agree on an exit from their sovereign debt troubles. Any solution that would ensure stability will also necessarily constrain growth in the region, because some austerity must result.

Why It Could Turn Out Worse Here

As bad as this sounds, the U.S.'s lost decade could actually be worse than Japan's, according to El-Erian. He notes that Japan had a few advantages over the U.S. during the period.

First, he says that the U.S. does not have the same level of "social cohesion" as Japan. In particular, the nation provided a broader, more effective safety net that can benefit a nation in a time of weak growth and high unemployment. Although the U.S. does have some measures meant to help those struggling, their impact is limited. For example, in the U.S. jobless benefits remain capped at 99 weeks. If unemployment is prolonged for several years, those payments will quickly run out for many Americans.

Second, he notes that Japan had a net creditor status. The U.S., however, is a net borrower. As a result, capital inflows helped Japan to recover more quickly. The U.S. doesn't have the same luxury.

Why It Might Turn Out Better

As bad as all this sounds, the U.S. might also have some advantages over Japan. Back in May, I spoke to S&P about why Japan was downgraded in 2001, while the U.S. hadn't been downgraded despite its similar level of debt-to-GDP. The rating agency provided several reasons why it considered the U.S. to have better prospects now, than Japan had then.

The U.S. has better fiscal indicators, both on the stocks and on the flows.

U.S. prices are more stable, while Japan flirts with deflation.

The dollar remains the key international currency, while the yen is a distant third.

U.S. growth prospects are better.

Japan has particularly troubling demographics, as its population is aging and skews towards the elderly.

The first two points do appear to give the U.S. a slight edge. But the U.S. may not get much benefit from the others.

The dollar's status as the international reserve currency of choice could quickly change. In fact, back in June I showed survey results that indicated that the dollar would cease to be the most important reserve currency as soon as this year.

Some economists might also challenge the point about the U.S. having better growth prospects. We certainly aren't seeing very strong growth over the past year. And the obstacles mentioned above show that achieving stronger growth will be difficult, since spending will be restrained for an extended period as unemployment remains high and consumers deleverage. Remember, consumer spending is responsible for about 70% of GDP.

Finally, the U.S. also has an aging population. The problem may have been more severe in Japan, but as the Baby Boomers retire the U.S. faces a similar challenge. In coming years, the nation will have millions more Americans relying on entitlements in the form of Social Security and Medicare. This large population of retirees will drain far more money from the government than they provide in revenue. This will require either more taxes, a smaller safety net, or both. That combination is precisely what you don't want when a nation is struggling with low growth and high unemployment.

How Do We Fix It?

But El-Erian remains surprisingly optimistic. He says that the Obama jobs bill and housing reform in the works are good first steps to minimize the possibility of a painful lost decade. Still, he says that the U.S. government must do more and suggests options like new infrastructure spending, additional immediate stimulus, and more aggressive housing market intervention.

If you follow politics in Washington, however, then you know that reality is much different from El-Erian's imagined government intervention. The Obama jobs bill is dead. A few of its provisions could ultimately pass, but their impact will likely be very minimal. The mortgage refinancing program will also have a subdued effect. Fannie and Freddie estimate that it will only help lower the monthly payments of between 800,000 and 1 million additional homeowners. Mortgage interest rates have also begun rising, which could limit its impact. At most, the effort will amount to a few billion dollars in new stimulus per year.

The mood in Congress is for austerity. So we shouldn't expect much additional spending on non-necessities over the next decade. That darkens the possibility of unplanned stimulus or new infrastructure spending. Both parties are concerned with the deficit. Republicans want to fix the problem with less spending. Democrats are looking at ways to increase revenue. Either option will slow economic growth.

And that's even assuming that more government intervention would help. Evidence of that isn't exactly compelling: despite a $787 billion stimulus in February 2009 and several other measures since then aimed at creating jobs, underemployment remains painfully high 16.5%. More tax breaks could just result in additional deleveraging. More takes breaks or stimulus injections for firms could boost profits, but that money could just flow into corporate coffers, instead of into the paychecks of new workers. Companies may continue to think that weak demand doesn't support more hiring.

Eventually, consumers and businesses will have to start spending. But if it takes them a few years to become more comfortable doing so, their newfound optimism could coincide with more aggressive austerity measures in the U.S. hitting. Taxes hikes and spending cuts will have to come before too long, as the nation's borrowing must slow. If Washington implements those measures too soon, then they threaten to erase the little growth that we're seeing. But even if they don't hit for several years, they will cut growth to a more modest pace at that time.

If you add that all together, you get a prolonged period of slow growth and relatively high unemployment. This doesn't appear to be a problem that policy can easily solve. Americans may just be in for some pain as consumer and government debt loads recede to more reasonable levels.

About the Author

Daniel Indiviglio was an associate editor at The Atlantic from 2009 through 2011. He is now the Washington, D.C.-based columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. He is also a 2011 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow through the Phillips Foundation.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

We can all agree that Millennials are the worst. But what is a Millennial? A fight between The New York Times and Slate inspired us to try and figure that out.

This article is from the archive of our partner .

We can all agree that Millennials are the worst. But what is a Millennial? A fight between The New York Times and Slate inspired us to try and figure that out.

After the Times ran a column giving employers tips on how to deal with Millennials (for example, they need regular naps) (I didn't read the article; that's from my experience), Slate's Amanda Hess pointed out that the examples the Times used to demonstrate their points weren't actually Millennials. Some of the people quoted in the article were as old as 37, which was considered elderly only 5,000 short years ago.

The age of employees of The Wire, the humble website you are currently reading, varies widely, meaning that we too have in the past wondered where the boundaries for the various generations were drawn. Is a 37-year-old who gets text-message condolences from her friends a Millennial by virtue of her behavior? Or is she some other generation, because she was born super long ago? (Sorry, 37-year-old Rebecca Soffer who is a friend of a friend of mine and who I met once! You're not actually that old!) Since The Wire is committed to Broadening Human Understanding™, I decided to find out where generational boundaries are drawn.